Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Are we developing the right intraoperative AI assistance? Surgeons’ perspectives and desired functions
0
Zitationen
11
Autoren
2026
Jahr
Abstract
Abstract Background As Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into surgical practice, particularly in robotic surgery, the clinical intraoperative implementation remains limited. Continued progress will require not only technical advances but also a clear understanding of which functions surgeons find valuable in practice. This study aimed to assess surgeons’ perceptions, knowledge, attitudes, and current use of AI-driven intraoperative assistance. Methods We conducted a structured, web-based survey of 53 surgeons across 5 continents, assessing demographics, attitudes, knowledge, current use, and perceived usefulness of five AI-based intraoperative guidance components, using video footage from robotic upper gastrointestinal surgeries. Participants were stratified by surgical experience level. Ordinal and categorical data were analyzed using non-parametric tests, and paired comparisons, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Results Perceived knowledge of AI tools for surgery was rated as average or lower by 83.0% of respondents, and 79.2% reported never using such tools intraoperatively. Confidence in relying on clinically validated AI tools was reported by 75.5%, and 86.8% agreed that intraoperative AI assistance could positively impact surgical performance. Anatomy recognition and risk detection received the highest usefulness scores (4.57 ± 0.54 and 4.45 ± 0.72, respectively), followed by vision–language model assistance (3.94 ± 0.97), while step recognition (3.36 ± 1.11) and decision-making guidance (3.51 ± 1.15) were rated lowest; overall usefulness differed significantly across the five components ( p < 0.001). Conclusion This study clarifies how surgeons expect intraoperative AI to be implemented. Despite high perceived usefulness across multiple surgical AI functions, especially for anatomical guidance, adoption in routine practice remains limited, highlighting a gap between positive perceptions and clinical implementation. Graphical abstract
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The SCARE 2020 Guideline: Updating Consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) Guidelines
2020 · 5.581 Zit.
The SCARE 2023 guideline: updating consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) guidelines
2023 · 3.007 Zit.
Virtual Reality Training Improves Operating Room Performance
2002 · 2.812 Zit.
Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents
1997 · 2.263 Zit.
Does Simulation-Based Medical Education With Deliberate Practice Yield Better Results Than Traditional Clinical Education? A Meta-Analytic Comparative Review of the Evidence
2011 · 1.754 Zit.